Social Media Discussion

[LawBeefaroni]

I think I mentioned it before but I think there will be some sort of subscription model where you pay for enhancements and possibly even tiered access.

The more you pay, the less curated you are but the more curated the content you see will be. Give people who pay what they want.

[LordMortis]

more importantly act as a kind of manipulator of public discourse, alienating some, but not enough to kill it. Profits can be sacrificed for vision.

Ding! Dissenters can be sacrificed for that vision as well. He's shown that time and again. In a literal sense.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-mu ... ing-2020-4

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-mu ... sla-2020-7

https://www.tpr.org/technology-entrepre ... -employees

[Isgrimnur]

What's wrong with kissing dogs?

Because it's a slippery slope, my friend....a slippery slope.

Spoiler:

[hepcat]

That guy was asking for it though. Did you see the mukluks he was wearing?

[Anonymous Bosch]

Are you capable of engaging people you disagree with without resorting to layer upon layer of condescending, contemptuous, dismissive bullshit?

Certainly, but if that's your notion of engaging people you disagree with without resorting to condescending, contemptuous, dismissive bullshit…



Perhaps you missed the context, but the original version of the post I was responding to included a variety of personal attacks and insults sufficient to prompt ImLawBoy to chime in with a friendly reminder to keep things civil (which was not done at my behest). I generally aim to treat and respond to others in the same way they treat and respond to me. So, rather than ignore ImLawBoy's reminder and respond in kind with similar insults and personal attacks, I responded with levity. If my levity struck you as inappropriately dismissive? Oh well.

[Skinypupy]

What's wrong with kissing dogs?

Because it's a slippery slope, my friend....a slippery slope.

Spoiler:

I was inwardly cringing, waiting for that to escalate to something truly horrific involving rending of flesh and lots of blood.

Well, more horrific, anyways.

[Blackhawk]

Perhaps you missed the context, but the original version of the post I was responding to included a variety of personal attacks and insults sufficient to prompt ImLawBoy to chime in with a friendly reminder to keep things civil (which was not done at my behest).

I saw it pre-edit.

If you think your posts being criticized for intellectual dishonesty is a deep personal attack, and is the same as your constant condescension and hyperbolic non-arguments, then yeah, I'm wasting my time. I'll go back to my 'pearl clutching histrionics' or whatever dismissive ad hominem you like to fall back on.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Perhaps you missed the context, but the original version of the post I was responding to included a variety of personal attacks and insults sufficient to prompt ImLawBoy to chime in with a friendly reminder to keep things civil (which was not done at my behest).

I saw it pre-edit.

If you think your posts being criticized for intellectual dishonesty is a deep personal attack, and is the same as your constant condescension and hyperbolic non-arguments, then yeah, I'm wasting my time. I'll go back to my 'pearl clutching histrionics' or whatever dismissive ad hominem you like to fall back on.

If that were what I thought, I would've said so myself without your helpful misrepresentation.

[Blackhawk]

[LawBeefaroni]

Deal is looking less likely at current bid. TSLA and TWTR shares have dropped significantly. Elon will want to pay less, TWTR shareholders/board probably don't want less.

[LordMortis]

Deal is looking less likely at current bid. TSLA and TWTR shares have dropped significantly. Elon will want to pay less, TWTR shareholders/board probably don't want less.

Isn't that a billion dollar oopsie if he doesn't buy it because he no longer thinks funding is secured? I don't see that happening unless I am only getting a smaller part of the picture.

[LawBeefaroni]

Deal is looking less likely at current bid. TSLA and TWTR shares have dropped significantly. Elon will want to pay less, TWTR shareholders/board probably don't want less.

Isn't that a billion dollar oopsie if he doesn't buy it because he no longer thinks funding is secured? I don't see that happening unless I am only getting a smaller part of the picture.

I haven't done the math but there is a point where the $1B breakup fee is cheaper.

There's a reason that TWTR is $6 or so below Musk's bid: less confidence that the deal will get done at $54.20 (not a random number, BTW). His currency, TSLA stock, has lost value. He will have to give up significantly more of his company at the current bid.

[malchior]

Apparently Musk is trying to seek a new source of funding.

Elon Musk is in talks to raise enough equity and preferred financing for his proposed buyout of Twitter Inc to negate the need for a $6.25 billion margin loan linked to his shares of Tesla, Bloomberg Law reported on Thursday, citing people with knowledge of the matter.

[LawBeefaroni]

There's about a $9B gap between the bid and current prices. It's going to come down to contract language. From what I understand, Musk waived due diligence but I'm sure there are some other protections.

But there still a good chance he walks and pays the $1B.

[Max Peck]

Elon Musk says Twitter deal 'temporarily on hold'

Elon Musk said Friday that his planned $44 billion US purchase of Twitter is "temporarily on hold" pending details on spam and fake accounts on the social media platform, another twist amid signs of internal turmoil over the proposed acquisition.

Musk, who has been vocal about his desire to clean up Twitter's problem with "spam bots" that mimic real people, appeared to question whether the company was underreporting them.

In a tweet, the Tesla billionaire linked to a Reuters story from May 2, citing a financial filing from Twitter that estimated false or spam accounts made up fewer than 5 per cent of the company's "monetizable daily active users" in the first quarter.

"Twitter deal temporarily on hold pending details supporting calculation that spam/fake accounts do indeed represent less than 5% of users," Musk wrote in his tweet, indicating he's skeptical that the number of inauthentic accounts is that low.

Twitter did not immediately respond to requests for comment early Friday.

Musk followed up on his original tweet and added, "Still committed to acquisition."

It wasn't clear whether the issue could scuttle the deal. Stock in both Twitter and Tesla swung sharply in opposite directions, with Twitter's stock tumbling 18 per cent, and Tesla, which Musk had proposed using to help fund the Twitter deal, jumped 5 per cent.

My money would be on >5%. A study in 2017 estimated that the number of bot accounts was 9-15%.

As many as 48 million Twitter accounts aren’t people, says study

A big chunk of those “likes,” “retweets,” and “followers” lighting up your Twitter account may not be coming from human hands. According to new research from the University of Southern California and Indiana University, up to 15 percent of Twitter accounts are in fact bots rather than people.

The research could be troubling news for Twitter, which has struggled to grow its user base in the face of growing competition from Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and others.

Researchers at USC used more than one thousand features to identify bot accounts on Twitter, in categories including friends, tweet content and sentiment, and time between tweets. Using that framework, researchers wrote that “our estimates suggest that between 9% and 15% of active Twitter accounts are bots.”

Since Twitter currently has 319 million monthly active users, that translates to nearly 48 million bot accounts, using USC’s high-end estimate.

The report goes on to say that complex bots could have shown up as humans in their model, “making even the 15% figure a conservative estimate.”

At 15 percent, the evaluation is far greater than Twitter’s own estimates. In a filing with the SEC last month, Twitter said that up to 8.5 percent of all active accounts contacted Twitter’s servers ”…without any discernable additional user-initiated action.”

[LawBeefaroni]

He's just probing public opinion/response. Bot% doesn't matter.

Musk also waived his right to carry out due diligence when he negotiated the Twitter deal, trying to get the company to accept his "best and final" offer. This makes it harder for him to argue in court that Twitter misled him.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/can- ... 022-05-11/

[LordMortis]

And I repeat

Also Dorsey and Musk are in agreement that Bots and scammers are extremely rare.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61399483

"He and I are of the same mind that permanent bans should be extremely rare and reserved for accounts that are bots or scam accounts,"

Donald Musk. Two heads of the same coin. Only one actually does good as a sociopathic manipulator who would sacrifice anyone for his yayas.

[LawBeefaroni]

And I repeat

Also Dorsey and Musk are in agreement that Bots and scammers are extremely rare.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61399483

"He and I are of the same mind that permanent bans should be extremely rare and reserved for accounts that are bots or scam accounts,"

Doesn't matter if bots are 5% or 15%. He waived due diligence and also contractually obligated not to badmouth the deal. You can tell his boneheaded tweet today was immediately followed by one crafted by his lawyers.

[malchior]

There's about a $9B gap between the bid and current prices. It's going to come down to contract language. From what I understand, Musk waived due diligence but I'm sure there are some other protections.

But there still a good chance he walks and pays the $1B.

Yup - someone likened it to him paying $1B for the option. Which is pretty tolerable when it is well less than 1% of your net worth. And he'll try to weasel out.

Doesn't matter if bots are 5% or 15%. He waived due diligence and also contractually obligated not to badmouth the deal. You can tell his boneheaded tweet today was immediately followed by one crafted by his lawyers.

+1

[Skinypupy]

"On second thought, let's not buy Twitter. It's a silly place."

[malchior]

[Blackhawk]

"On second thought, let's not buy Twitter. It's a silly place."

It's only a twaddle...

[LordMortis]

Couldn't resist the comments, Ray. This one is particularly poignant.

is it market manipulation if it was already obvious?

[El Guapo]

There's about a $9B gap between the bid and current prices. It's going to come down to contract language. From what I understand, Musk waived due diligence but I'm sure there are some other protections.

But there still a good chance he walks and pays the $1B.

Yup - someone likened it to him paying $1B for the option. Which is pretty tolerable when it is well less than 1% of your net worth. And he'll try to weasel out.

Doesn't matter if bots are 5% or 15%. He waived due diligence and also contractually obligated not to badmouth the deal. You can tell his boneheaded tweet today was immediately followed by one crafted by his lawyers.

+1

I assume that the tweet is laying out his public cover story for gradually backing out of the deal.

[malchior]

I assume that the tweet is laying out his public cover story for gradually backing out of the deal.

Looks like it. It just seem weak but I'm sure he is fine with the fight. It's pocket change. Some folks think that he is manipulating the market (potentially for his or proxy player's gain) which is what the Tweet I posted is talking about.

[LawBeefaroni]

I assume that the tweet is laying out his public cover story for gradually backing out of the deal.

Looks like it. It just seem weak but I'm sure he is fine with the fight. It's pocket change. Some folks think that he is manipulating the market (potentially for his or proxy player's gain) which is what the Tweet I posted is talking about.

It's him laying out his own ill-advised personal justification for walking. But it's in violation of his agreement not to badmouth the deal or Twitter while still finalizing the deal. Which is why his lawyers probably made him send the follow up an hour later.

[AWS260]

You have to admire Elon's innovative, break-the-mold approach to business negotiations.

On Monday, Parag Agrawal, Twitter’s chief executive, also posted a lengthy thread detailing how the company calculates its number of bots. He said the company’s internal estimates for the last four quarters “were all well under 5 percent.”

Mr. Musk later responded to Mr. Agrawal’s tweet thread with a poop emoji.

[LawBeefaroni]

You have to admire Elon's innovative, break-the-mold approach to business negotiations.

On Monday, Parag Agrawal, Twitter’s chief executive, also posted a lengthy thread detailing how the company calculates its number of bots. He said the company’s internal estimates for the last four quarters “were all well under 5 percent.”

Mr. Musk later responded to Mr. Agrawal’s tweet thread with a poop emoji.

It's better to be lucky than good. And it's better to be a lucky asshole than just lucky.

[Max Peck]

Elon Tells Twitter: Prove That Bots Aren't a Big Deal, or I Sink This Buyout

Elon Musk, current Tesla CEO and perhaps not Twitter’s future owner, has a message for the social media network he once coveted but now comments on with poop emojis: Show him that spam bots and fake accounts are less than 5% of Twitter users or watch him blow this whole deal up.

“Yesterday, Twitter’s CEO publicly refused to show proof of <5%. This deal cannot move forward until he does,” Musk tweeted early Tuesday morning. The day prior, the richest man in the world had sparred with Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal, tweeting the poop emoji at the executive’s explanation of the prevalence of automated accounts on the social network.

[LordMortis]

When a 4Chan troll is the richest man in the world...

[Rumpy]

Yeah, sounds he's trolling. Hard to tell his intent and whether he's serious when it's doing this. Seems like their relationship is off to a great start this early in the process.

[pr0ner]

I guess you could put this in numerous threads, but given Twitter is where Musk is making most of his hay these days...here you go.



This definitely gives horse trading a whole new meaning.

[LawBeefaroni]

His tweet about Dems coming after him makes even more sense now.

[pr0ner]

His tweet about Dems coming after him makes even more sense now.

There's a whole lot of recent tweets (and some past ones) that make even more sense now, even beyond that one.

[LordMortis]

You got me. I couldn't resist.

This made me laugh, at least.

The agreement also included restrictive non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses...

[malchior]

I dropped this story in one if the P&R threads as well. His only comment in the BI article pretty much confirmed the story while complaining it was a political hit job. Once you know what to look for it is pretty obvious he is a manipulative scumbag.

[pr0ner]

Elon is doubling down on Twitter that the BI story is untrue (even though BI gave him a chance to respond and he wouldn't because he says it's a "hit piece"), calling the person who outed the information a "far left activist/actress in LA with a major political axe to grind".

Also, Popehat brings the funny:

[LawBeefaroni]

His tweet about Dems coming after him makes even more sense now.

There's a whole lot of recent tweets (and some past ones) that make even more sense now, even beyond that one.

He's all to predictable. And it's pretty clear why he wanted to control Twitter. It's his own personal damage control network.

[malchior]

FWIW these efforts are the way to handle these sort of hucksters/malignant narcissists. You don't focus on what they are saying and instead point out how and why they are lying from the get go.

[Rumpy]

Well, if you're literally caught with your pants down, you can be sure to be called on it.

And yep, this is exactly why it's a bad idea for him to have control of Twitter.